First of all, like Spiff said "marraige" does come from religous institutions, and has always been the union of a man and a woman. It would serve the gay community well to abandon the term "marraige" altogether because religous people feel like their religion is being stolen, and will fight their cause even harder.

I believe that ANY 2 people should be allowed to register somewhere that would allow them to share insurance policies, and have access to the generic civil services that require a "family type" relationship to obtain. This should also apply to any 2 men or women that are friends, even if they aren't having sex. There is such a thing as platonic love.

The one thing I have to draw the line at is any kind of tax breaks for gay couples, regardless of the term used to describe the relationhip. The reason is simple. Reproduction. There is a high likelyhood that a normal couple will have a child after getting married. They will have 16-18 years of supporting a person that has no income, and should get a tax break to help them with that. After all, everyone born would cause someone to get that break, so it is fair. Gay couples can not have children, so a tax break is not necessary.

Other than that, whatever satifies their need for basic access to services, I'm for.

IM-deeply-humble-O, the whole hang up about civil union (CU) vs. marriage (M) is the idea of "separate but equal", which I believe is a red herring. The only thing making it "separate" is terminology. In the eyes of the law, CU = M. In the eyes of some people in the gay community, CU < M because M is not available to them. They won't give up until the term Marriage loses any sense of gender specificity. That is not possible.

Picture this scenario: It's the late 1800s and the Women's Suffrage Movement is in full swing. What if the opposition had allowed them the "right to cast ballots" in 1895 instead of "the right to vote", which actually happened in 1920. Would they have accepted it or refused and pressed on with their cause to get the exact word they wanted written into law?

_________________________I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

I thought getting married resulted in slightly less favorable tax status, not a break as you say. Also, currently you only get breaks per child, so your "potential for having children" logic doesn't really apply.

_________________________I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

Gays can adopt. Straights don't always have children. If a sterile woman or man were to get married, should they not be allowed to file their taxes jointly? Heck, should they be allowed to marry at all?

"IM-deeply-humble-O, the whole hang up about civil union (CU) vs. marriage (M) is the idea of "separate but equal", which I believe is a red herring. The only thing making it "separate" is terminology. In the eyes of the law, CU = M. In the eyes of some people in the gay community, CU < M because M is not available to them. They won't give up until the term Marriage loses any sense of gender specificity. That is not possible."

That's what I meant to say.

A friend who doesn't want to get involved PM'd me with the notion that the gay community is seeking "approval" vs mere "acceptance". Civil union is pretty much an acceptance of one's personal choice to be gay, I reckon. But this whole thing seems like a whole lot of unnecessary fuss about where a guy wants to stick his pecker, but whatever...

The best tax year we ever had was our first year in our new house. We weren't married , filed separately, with her taking the std deduction and me taking the interest on the loan, etc... to itemize. Got married the next year, lost the nice tax situation, she stopped trying so hard to please me ("Every night is unrealistic" ), and the rest is wedded bliss.

Seems like you ought to have to pay more taxes if you have more kids. Like user fees. More kids = using more services.

As far as taxes go, this coming year we're going to be getting a bit screwed that we can't file jointly. The house is in Roger's name, but I make a lot more money than he does. He'll likely be able to write off far more in taxes than he paid. If we could file jointly we'd be getting a lot more of our tax dollars back. Plain and simple, we can't because we're gay. Doesn't seem fair.

As a single guy, I have no direct experience with taxes, marraige, or children. I do, however, hear the guys at work talking about how with the deductions that they get for being married with 2 childen and a house, they pay very little taxes. I pay a ton of taxes, and have a bigger mortgage than most of them. There MUST be something to it. Maybe I need a new accountant?

Craig,

I said that straight couples were "likely" to have a child. Not that all of them would. Laws, rules, taxes, etc. need to be set up to deal the "average" citizen or household, Not all people will be within those categories.

With all due respect to you as a person, my belief is that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt children. It has nothing to do with you or your spouse. I believe that every child should be raised under the assumption that they will be normal in all repects, including being straight, unless something comes along and prevents that.

If environment is a factor in determining sexual orientation, then there is the possibility of doing harm to a child by placing it in an environment that could alter it's normal development. If we put normal children in gay households, and the environment makes them gay, then we have harmed that child.

If environment does not play a part into how that child develops sexually, then we have erred on the side of caution, with the best intentions of the child in mind.

If sexual orientation is genetic, or has some other incurable, medically valid cause, then environment would not be a factor and again, we have erred on the side of caution.

If there's even the slightest chance that environment plays a part in determining sexual orientation, then I do not think we should risk altering the normal development of a single child. All children deserve a chance at a normal life. We sholdn't put thm at a disadvantage from the get go.

If its becomming the norm to change the way things are done for some ppl, why can't we just expand that to rest of the world. Hell women deserve the right to vote n such, I think we definitely need to liberate all women in the middle east. Hell they'd shoot you over there if ur gay, thats not right. We need to fix that as well.

Seriously, the gay marriage thing is possibly the hardest social issue since the civial rights movement. But I hardly would compare them apples to apples. Its just more different than similar IMO.

Now personally I also have no issues with any gay person, esp having the same rights as *married* couples do. But I do have a BIG concern on this issue because after 'marriage' is redefined, 'family' will be next. Tell me that the majority of social issues in our country couldn't be fixed by having a stronger home? I'm not saying two men can't raise a kid, but there IS a lot to be said by children being raised by the influence of a man AND a woman. There is just no denying that.

How about that psycho Kerry is married to? She looks, sounds and acts like a bag lady wearing Versace. Can you imagine Teresa Heinz as the First Lady?
I saw the real First Lady on the O'Reilly show tonight - now there is one wonderful, classy, intelligent, beautiful woman. I think Bush is smarter than folks give him credit for, but how did he score a great lady like that?
Speaking of O'Reilly, he seems to have toned down his act a little. Much more polite (except when some absolute moron gets on the show) than he was before. Thanks for getting me back into the FoxNews channel, guys. I had pretty much abandoned TV news.